Colleen Hanabusa on Principles & Values

Got $75M tax credit for Ko Oilna, and husband got $400,000

Ige went on the offensive in the campaign by challenging Hanabusa on her two-year push for a $75 million state tax credit for development of an aquarium at Ko Olina, alleging the deal demonstrated that she makes decisions "on behalf of self-interest
and special interests."

Hanabusa led the drive to get lawmakers to approve the Ko Olina tax credit in 2002 and 2003, but the bill was written so that only developer Jeff Stone could benefit from it. Less than a month after the $75 million tax credit
was approved, Stone sold a luxury Ko Olina townhouse to Hanabusa's then-fiance Souza. One of Stone's companies financed the sale by lending Souza $405,773 for the purchase.

Souza, who is now Hanabusa's husband and campaign chairman, bought the
Kai Lani townhouse for $569,023 in mid-2003 and sold it for $990,000 in Jan. 2004. Hanabusa noted that Stone claimed only $3.45 million of the $75 million tax credit, and said there "has never been any wrongdoing found" in connection with the tax credit.

OpEd: Too old to build seniority to steer pork to Hawaii

The Democratic primary battle is not a clash over ideology. Rather, the divide is personal. In Hanabusa's candidacy, what remains of Sen. Inouye's mostly Japanese-American political machine is fighting for supremacy against a younger and whiter
progressive wing that is trying to become Hawaii's new ruling class.

A new path is what Abercrombie had in mind when he picked Schatz, saying, "It had everything to do with the future and the past." The governor said he thought Hanabusa, now 62,
was too old to build enough seniority in the Senate to continue Inouye's legacy of steering an outsize allowance of federal money to Hawaii. Abercrombie noted: "Brian Schatz is 41. Colleen isn't. She's in her 60s."

Hanabusa said Abercrombie's focus
on her age is "rather offensive." Hanabusa sounded angry and at times bitter that Abercrombie passed her over for Schatz. "It's like saying to the voters, 'Here's somebody who's going to be there forever.' No one should feel that level of entitlement."

Question Trump on Emoluments clause.

Hanabusa signed questioning Trump on Emoluments clause

Excerpts from Letter from 17 Senators to Trump Organization: The Trump Organization's continuing financial relationship with President Trump raises concerns about whether it is a pass-through for income that violates the Constitution's two Emoluments Clauses: Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 on foreign Emoluments; and Article II, Clause 7 on domestic Emoluments. Please answer the following questions to help Congress understand:

When the Trump Organization receives income from a government agency, how is that income segregated & reported?

How does the Trump Organization determine if income is derived from foreign governments?

Trump promised to "donate all profits from foreign government payments made to his hotels to the US Treasury." Has the Trump Organization created a mechanism to make such payments?

What is the estimated value of the 38 Chinese trademarks recently awarded to the Trump Organization? And the reported 157 pending trademark applications in
36 countries?

Legal Analysis: (Cato Institute, "Emoluments Clause vs. Trump Empire," 11/29/16): The wording of the Emoluments clause points one way to resolution: Congress can give consent, as it did in the early years of the Republic to presents received by Ben Franklin. It can decide what it is willing to live with in the way of Trump conflicts. If it misjudges public opinion, it will pay a political price at the next election.

FOIA argument: (ACLU Center for Democracy, "FOIA Request," 1/19/17): We filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump's conflicts of interest relating to his business connections. When Trump took the oath of office, he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family's business interests comply with the Constitution. Some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Emoluments Clause.